22/10/2017 Sunday Politics London

Morning everyone, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

And this is your essential briefing on everything

that's moving and shaking in the world of politics.

Theresa May wants the big internet companies to take down extremist

But is the most dangerous material beyond the reach of the government

We'll be speaking to a Home Office minister.

Progress, yes - but French President Emmanuel

Macron, says that when it comes to agreeing on a divorce bill

the UK and EU are "not even half way there".

So are Brexit talks just living on a prayer?

I'm in Canterbury asking whether the benefits system is too cruel or too

kind. In London this week, four months

on from the Grenfell Tower fire, should the body responsible

for the building be disbanded? And with me today, our regular

gaggle of political experts. All of them fresh from a long hot

bath - as prescribed So they are fully de-stressed

and ready to make a calm and collected assessment

of the day's political Tom Newton Dunn,

Helen Lewis and Iain Martin. So, what are the big

political stories making The Shadow Brexit Secretary,

Keir Starmer, has delivered Theresa May an ultimatum over

the EU withdrawal bill. He says he'll instruct Labour MPs

to vote with rebel Conservative MPs for a binding vote

on the final EU deal - that's unless Theresa May

accepts six changes to the crucial legislation that's currently

going through parliament. They include a commitment

to a transition period, during which Britain would stay

in the single market And to maintain workers'

and human rights at the levels As if Brexit wasn't enough

of a headache for the EU, the constitutional crisis in Spain

has escalated further. The government in Madrid is set

to strip the Catalan regional government of its powers,

after it stated its intention to declare independence

following the referendum Back here in the UK,

the government is launching a consultation on how

to speed up the process The Communities Secretary,

Sajid Javid, wants to reduce the cost of buying a home and outlaw

practices such as gazumping. He also suggested this

morning that there would be more money for house building

in the next month's Budget. We are looking at new investments. I

am sure the budget will be covering housing. But what I want to do is

make sure that we are using everything we have available to deal

with this housing crisis. Where that means, for example, that we can

sensibly borrow more to invest in the infrastructure that leads to

more housing, take advantage of some of the record low interest rates we

have, we should absolutely consider that.

Let's pic up on that with our panel. What do you make of him saying there

could be more money for investment? There is a bit of a split in the

Tory party on this with people who are small majorities... The story of

the 2017 election was mortgage owners and homeowners, more of them

voted Conservative. Those people are very worried. They don't think Sajid

Javid goes far enough. You have these Tories sitting in leafy seat

with big majorities who worry that anything about increasing supply of

housing will upset their constituents. There is a lot of

nibbling around the edges when the real problem is supply. That is

something that Labour failed to address and the Conservatives are

still failing to address. On the ideological front in terms of

borrowing, this is a shift from the Conservative government? Borrow to

build? Where'er we that before? It was a big Lib Dem thing. No Sajid

Javid, considered the pinnacle of free marketeer Tories, is coming up

with it, too. This is the reality the Chancellor is facing in this

budget. Every chancellor is under pressure to spend money. But he has

got to pay for it is Newtown reversal, 2 billion, public sector

pay rises, and now this huge plan on housing because Theresa May did not

go far enough in his conference speech. What does he do? He borrows.

The government has to look like it's doing something on the plastic front

and to save the Chancellor's skin? The Chancellor emerged from the

general election in a pretty strong position. Theresa May wanted to fire

him. He seems to have squandered a lot of that political capital since.

He is now really playing for his career. It is also very strange way

to put together a budget. If you think back to when Gordon used to do

it, or George Osborne, you wouldn't have had other ministers essentially

bidding in public. That is a function of the fact that the Prime

Minister and the Chancellor lacked authority and lack the ability to

actually discipline any of those ministers. It is a bidding war. Even

before the budget, there is a possibility we could see changes on

Universal Credit. The government has already changed the helpline to make

it free. We will be talking to Debbie Abrahams later. Do you think

the government will have to make further changes to Universal Credit?

I think they would be wise to. If there is an option of doing a

U-turn, always do it. The helpline is a classic example. It was a

concession made before PMQ. The other concessions will be more

expensive. The whole way Universal Credit is built is a problem. This

idea of paying and arrears is unfortunately very difficult for

people whose lifestyles are chaotic, or have experienced illness, and

they find it hard to budget. There are other problems so baked into

Universal Credit they can't be solved. For example, that it goes to

the head of the household rather than individual people. That is a

problem for women suffering from domestic violence. It is inherent in

that system. There is only so much tinkering. It is the six weight --

week wait from the initial claim that has been making the headlines.

Is that something the government can change? It will cost them. Any

change to Universal Credit will cost them. The problem with Universal

Credit is that everybody across the board, the Labour Party agreed it

was the right thing to do, but it has been hollowed out macro year

after year by largely George Osborne raiding Iain Duncan Smith's budget

and adding extra weight etc. That comes to a huge amount of money. It

makes Universal Credit a lot less effective. Some Tory MPs would say

it is more unfair. At the moment the government has decided not to whip

against the Labour motion, that was the moment we knew they would have

to move on this. As a consequence of being a minority government, they

simply do not have the numbers any more to stand up against Tory rebels

in the centre, the more liberal minded Tory rebels who want to

oppose it. They will have to make this change before the budget? I

think they will have two. The other problem is that the whole world of

work has actually changed, even in the time that this policy has been

implemented. Design is ten years ago by Iain Duncan Smith in opposition,

pushed through from 2010. US the rise of the gig economy, were a lot

of people who work in temporary, low people -- low-paid work, appear on a

48, 72 hour basis, with small amounts going into their account,

rather than waiting for the monthly salary cheques. The problem with it,

and we are about to find out, is it adaptable?

We will pic up more on this later. Theresa May has repeatedly called

for big tech companies to do more to tackle extremist content

on their platforms. At the G7 this week internet

companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google

were once again brought face to face with ministers

to be held to account. But with extremists always finding

new ways to spread propaganda, is the political pressure

on internet giants really having any effect?

Emma Vardy has this report. After a series of terror attacks

in the UK this year, Internet firms were accused of having

blood on their hands. It was claimed it would take only

minutes on Google to find bomb-making instructions

for the device which detonated It believes the big web companies

like Google, Facebook and Twitter now have

a responsibility to play a much more proactive role in the

fight against terror. Not only by taking down jihadist

and right wing material, but also by developing ways

to prevent extreme groups from having a presence

on the platforms So, this is a national action

video, a banned neo-Nazi And we reported this video

to YouTube back in February. And yet we still find the same

video up there again months later, but on

somebody else's channel. As chair of the Home Affairs

Select Committee, Yvette Cooper told me she has challenged

Internet firms repeatedly over why material like this is

so easily available. Why can't they just find a way

to do their own searches and remove Tech firms were called

to give evidence about this to the committee

in February of this year. At that time they still

refused to tell us even, for example, how many staff

they had working on online And in the case of YouTube even

refused to accept they had any responsibility to search proactively

for this kind of illegal material. However, they still just don't go

far enough to remove illegal material that they could very easily

do, especially when these are some of the richest

companies in the world. It ranges from hate speech

and all the way through to the I've come to New Scotland Yard

to meet an officer from a specialist police unit dealing

with this every day. Because of the nature of his work,

we can't show his identity Our remit is to facilitate

the removal of extremist and terrorist material

from the Internet. The material we ask to be removed

has been scanned by human eye, and our officers

have looked at it. From your perspective, what is your

interaction like with the big We have a good working relationship

with the big companies. Most of them have

representatives in the UK. If we feel we need to

escalate something, we can. At a day-to-day level,

the people we engage with in the companies do take it

extremely seriously. Google, which owns

YouTube, relies not only on the police to help alert it

to extremist content, but also works with a wide community of trusted

flaggers and users with specialist But there are times when not

everybody agrees on what should be taken down, or to draw the line

on what constitutes speech. Academics at Kings College London

are now working with Google to identify

extremist material. Theresa May has called for this

content to be taken down within But tech companies and experts say

it's not that simple. YouTube posts lots of videos that

document war crimes, committed either by Syrian rebel

groups or the Syrian regime. These are very important

videos for them to host. They will hopefully one day be

used to bring criminals to justice who have committed

horrific war crimes. That is a service that YouTube

provides to humanity, in essence, by being able to be a repository

for the documentation of crimes. Yet if you were to

automate the process, those videos would be caught up

in the same kind of way in which a beheading video would be

captured or a propaganda So this is a

labour-intensive process. So setting a target of two hours

seems pretty arbitrary. Facebook and Google say

they are beginning to use artificial intelligence to spot certain images

and text related to terrorism. Twitter says it suspended nearly

300,000 accounts in the first half YouTube redirects users

searching for extremist And companies are now sharing

databases of suspicious material and have set up the global Internet

forum to bring together the But away from the big companies

there is another problem. Much of the most serious extremist

material has migrated onto smaller Now the semi-encrypted

app Telegram, based in Russia, is the app choice

for disseminating jihadist material. Telegram has taken

on a life of its own. It seems to be the primary arena

of activity now in which a lot People trying to give

other people inspiration. These do disappear with relative

frequency on Telegram, but they pop back up very, very quickly,

in a way that they don't do Is it really fair,

the amount of scrutiny put on the big companies at

the moment, when actually a lot of extremist material is being shared

on smaller platforms, and yet they can't be hauled in front

of the select committee? So it is much harder

when you get to some of these smaller platforms, the secure ones,

and also some of them which may be located in countries where there

is no effort to even have any proper action against them

or proper standards in place. I don't think that lets

the big companies off the hook, because given their global

reach they have to do their bit. Some of those smaller

companies are actually more dangerous and more challenging

and more difficult to deal with. This week, the

Director-General of MI5 said the UK will continue

to be a target. Security services are in no doubt

that material spread on social media and messaging apps is helping

to direct and inspire With the work that's now been

stepped up by Internet firms, in private at least,

politicians now agree that But should there be more attacks,

the tech companies know that unless even more tangible changes

to their platforms can be seen, it will be them that can be

in the firing line once again. We're joined now by the Home Office

Minister, Brandon Lewis - But first let's speak

to Sasha Havlicek, of the Institute for

Strategic Dialogue, which has been given

?1 million by Google to fund projects that help counter

extremism in the UK. We saw Andrew Parker they're saying

we face an extreme threat and he says tech companies have an ethical

responsibility to do something about this, do you agree? I do, and I

think they have committed to that, we have seen big changement and

investments being made. There are three types of response that can

happen, one you have talked about, the moderation and removal of

extremist and terrorist content, that has been the large focus for

Government, for the international community, we have seen a lot of

pressure being put on companies to do more to automate their responses,

for better or worse. Just to pick up on that, is it working? We saw

examples there even on big sites like YouTube of extremist videos

popping back up again? That is right, and there is migration to

smaller platforms, this is a wider ecosystem so it is difficult.

Efforts are being made in terms of our division intelligence, machine

learning, but, as we've heard before, there is a massive challenge

in terms of grey area content, context of content, and human review

is important. But there are two ways to respond to this, and I believe

there is an enormous amount that needs to be done and companies are

investing. One is education and resilience, we all need to know

better how to get resilient and respond to this sort of stuff...

What do you mean, that viewers should look away from it rather than

tech companies take it down? Not about looking away from it but civil

society organisations need to challenge this, grey area content

which is often not beheading videos but stuff about the good life, let's

say, in Raqqa, telling you about the NHS providing fantastic services in

Syria, which is difficult to take down, it is not obviously violent,

much of it is not even branded material. We need competition

strategies there, this is a battle of hearts and minds... That makes

perfect sense but sounds like you are changing the subject from the

fact you have been asked to remove extremist material more quickly and

keep it off the web and that does not seem to be happening yet? That

will never be the whole response to the problem and I think more is

being done now to invest in ways in which to do that more speedily and

more effectively, and the engagement of organisations like ours, like

skin -- like King's College, organisations that can provide more

input will help, but we also need to educate people to compete more

effectively but also so they can understand the provenance of the

content they are seeing so they understand what is propaganda, what

is hate speech. Blizzard tools that young people and older people will

need to have. It is not just a case of people exposed to extremist

propaganda, though. Andrew Parker, the MI5 chief, was saying this week

that plots are being hatched, people are using the Internet to

communicate with each other and put together within hours plots that

would have taken weeks previously. That is right and much of that

happened in encrypted spaces. Propaganda seeks to interest and

insight people, develop an interest in the organisations and pulled them

progressively in. We need to combat that, provide counter content and

compete effectively in that space, without also see direct engagement,

extremists are effective at one-to-one messaging with people,

giving vulnerable individuals to radicalisation a lot of time and

love, and we need to be doing that, Internet companies have invested

some innovative approaches to that direct counter speech, direct

messaging and we do some of that, and we need to start to invest in

scaling up innovations within civil society. This Google Grant, the

innovation fund, is about equipping civil society, educators, social

companies, we need to do much more at a civic level to respond. We will

leave it there for now and bring in the Home Office minister Brandon

Lewis. Listening to that, are you satisfied that tech companies are

giving enough? They were put on notice a month ago by the Prime

Minister, the deadline has run out, have they met your expectations? As

you said, the Prime Minister held that meeting a month ago and I think

the Prime Minister and Amber Rudd as Home Secretary have globally led the

way on this. There is more to do and the Internet companies themselves

are recognising that. What we have heard in the clips you have played

if this is a hugely complex area, but we need to see big Internet

companies doing more. What Sasha was saying there and what we heard in

the film is that it can be difficult to work out what is extremist

material, some of it will be obvious but some of it may not necessarily

be obviously so and therefore easy to take down within two hours, which

is what the Prime Minister suggested. Who is it up to what is

extremist and what is Free Speech? You are right, that is why this is

such a complex area. I agree with the lady who outlined the fact that

this is not just about making sure we see the material come down in two

hours, we do want Internet companies to do that and work towards

technology which stops it coming up in a first prize, but it is also

about educating ourselves and having civil society involved in this, and

that is why we are working with tech companies inputting time, effort and

money into working with community groups and local authorities to make

sure we educate people around what this content is and what is right

about the British society and why we should continue to promote that and

resist this kind of Divergent from terrorist organisations, but we do

need to make sure we have protections and the Internet does

not become a back door for terrorists to act. But you have set

this limit on tech companies of two hours whilst simultaneously saying

it is difficult to determine what is extremist propaganda, and you don't

even seem to know who is the final arbiter of what is extremist and

what is not? What is clear is we have had examples, as you showed a

few minutes ago, are people being able to go online, download, look

at, and upload in the past, terrorist material, how to commit a

terrorist atrocity. We need to make sure that the access to technology

ensures those sites not only come down quickly but the ideal is when

they are not able to go up in the first place, so you will remember in

the Prime Minister's speech, the Home Secretary's speech at

the conference, outlining to the walls around the sentencing for

criminals and people who download this material and continue to view

it, as well as those using it to commit atrocities. In Germany there

is a new law meaning companies can be fined 50 million euros if illegal

content is not taken down within 24 hours, with the UK Government

consider something similar? We have said all along we restrict ourselves

from not looking at legislation at all, it is very much part of the

artillery that central Government has, looking at legislation, but we

are also clear that the real winner on this is to get Internet companies

fulfilling their moral and ethical duties, technology is moving so fast

now, we need to make sure we moved with it, the weight legislation

cannot always do, and that is why it is right that Internet companies

take the responsibility, and not just the big companies but there are

lots of small and medium companies out there, so having the ability for

those big companies to work with, do presentations for, help small and

medium companies means we are all internationally protected as well,

it has to be a global approach. We know the Internet sees their

boundaries, does not understand the boundaries we see on a map of the

world. We have to make sure technology can keep up with that.

Brandon Lewis, thank you. If I can pick up one last point with you,

Sasha, where there are companies like Telegram, based in Russia,

mentioned in the film, there is nothing we can do from here to stop

extremist material on that. Can there be a global effort for an

international standard? I think that is exactly the point of the global

Internet forum on counterterrorism, we have been working on a

classification framework not for the big companies but for the smaller

ones, to train them up on that, as it has been noted they have variable

capacity in terms of being able to monitor and remove this kind of

content, but also the knowledge is lacking so there is more we can do

in that space. There is need for a bigger evidence base in

understanding what is it we are trying to do, so when Twitter says

300,000 bits of accounts removed, is that great news, bad news? We need

to have a common framework for measuring success and we hope very

much to work towards that. Thanks very much for that.

So, as expected, when EU leaders met in Brussels on Friday, they decided

that not enough progress had been made for the Brexit negotiations

to move onto the next stage of talks about a possible new trade deal.

But they did give the go-ahead for EU officials to start preparing

for those trade talks, which could now begin in December.

For that to happen, there will need to be an agreement on the so-called

divorce bill, and on that the two sides still look a long way apart.

The UK wants the divorce bill to be as low as possible,

but all the other 27 EU countries want it to be as higher.

Because when Britain leaves, there will be a hole in the EU

budget and they'll have to cover the shortfall.

The bill covers things like the pensions of former EU

staff, the cost of relocating EU agencies based in the UK,

and outstanding commitments to EU programmes.

EU sources have put the total at anything between 50 billion

The UK has agreed to meet its financial obligations,

but Brexit secretary David Davis has said, "We will not be

And Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson suggested European

In her Florence speech last month, the Prime Minister indicated the UK

But at this week's summit, there were whispers that Theresa May

has privately reassured the other EU leaders

that she is willing to pay a lot more.

French President Emmanuel Macron says,

"We are not halfway there", creating speculation that he thinks

the bill should be should be more than 40 billion euros.

We're joined now from Salford by the Conservative MP and Leave

And from Rome, by the Italian MEP, Roberto Gualtieri, who sits

on the European Parliament's Brexit Steering Group.

If I can come to you first, Nigel Adams, what do you think the bill

ought to be? Has the Prime Minister got any political room to move above

something like 20 billion euros? Can she sell it to the party if it is

more than that? 20 billion relates to the two-year transition, our

membership during that period of time. Anything else above that

should clearly relate to our contractual obligations, you

mentioned a few of them. We want to make certain that Lord Peter

Mandelson gets his pension in do is old age and clearly there will be

all sorts of British people who work at the European Union, their

pensions need to be looked after, you mentioned EU institutions moving

from Britain back to the EU. If that is the case clearly there will be

costs to that. But there seems to be a lot of Enid Blyton figures

floating around. You quite rightly said at the beginning of the

programme that the European Union is coming at it from a stance of

wanting as much money as they can from the United Kingdom in order

that they don't have to fill the hole that is created, and I come at

it from the fact that I've percent 75,000 people in the Ribble Valley

and want to make sure that we only pay what we need to because we want

the rest of the money spent on British public services in

hospitals, schools, the police force and Armed Forces. That is where I am

coming from and I think it behoves people like Roberto in Rome to look

practically at what that figure is because you just don't make it up,

it has to actually relate to something. I know you are not going

to put a figure on it here today for that very reason but there must be

limits beyond which you would not go? David Davis said 100 billion new

roads would be unacceptable. Does sporty or the billion euros feel

like something the UK could agree to? -- 40 or 50 billion euros. Only

if it relates to something we can actually see that we owe. 100

billion does seem rather fanciful to me. I want to make sure, I am

clinically optimistic about Britain leaving the European Union and

wanting the United Kingdom to assist the rest of the 27 into grooming.

Roberto knows in his country they have youth unemployment of 35%,

which is awful... Let's bring Roberto Gualtieri in at that point,

thank you for joining us from Rome. Nigel Evans does not want to put a

figure on what the UK Government would be prepared to pay. Do you

think the EU have a figure in mind of what they think is an acceptable

divorce Bill? No, we want first to agree on a method of forming a

general commitment to the obligations that are stemming from

membership of the union in numbers, so we are not yet at the point of

numbers. We would like exacted a start doing that exercise, to go

line by line to find what is a commitment, what does it mean, and

so prepared the ground for arriving at a number. So far this exercise

has been postponed by the UK, and I welcome the readiness to enter and

start doing this exercise, which is essential to move to the second

phase. I was going to ask, talks have been going on in Brussels for

weeks, if they have not been going online by line through the

commitments, what have they been doing? Sorry, I did not get the

question? What has been going on in the talks if it is not going through

the commitments to work out what the UK owes?

Payal on the financial settlement we lost a lot of time because for the

first phase the UK was putting into place the principle of meeting the

moral obligation. Theresa May's speech in Florence was positive in a

sense. This has not yet been translated into a very practical

exercise of going line by line across the budget. The

liabilities... There is a lot of technical stuff. It is very tech --

concrete when we transform it in reality. It is a complex exercise

and we need to start this as soon as possible. Nigel Adams -- Nigel

Evans, you are nodding enthusiastically. They haven't been

prepared to go line by line through their financial commitments? As far

as I'm aware the United Kingdom is not holding back at all. We have

been told we can't macro start talking about trade until the

divorce payments have been settled. They need to get on with that.

Roberta knows that Britain has got a ?7 billion deficit with Italy. We

love buying your Prasad go, your car is, your fashion, we want to carry

on doing that. The sooner that we can get to this so-called divorce

settlement figure dealt with we can ensure that we have got as

frictionless as possible a trade deal between the European Union and

the United Kingdom, it is going to benefit everybody. We just want to

get on with it. Nigel Evans says we can't macro agree divorce bill we

had agree -- see what the trade situation looks like. It is

impossible to agree that some until the trade talks have been resolved?

We are confusing things. We want to start the discussion on the trade

agreement, which is very important, but to do that we need to settle the

main element of the withdrawal agreement. Divorce first is the

logic principle. Even the logic of my interlocutor who says we want to

pay what is needed, not more, requires this exercise. We look

forward to starting this exercise. The sooner we start this exercise

that I described before, the sooner we can enter into the discussion on

the element of the future trade relationship. Nigel Evans, the UK

government did agree to the sequencing of these talks, but the

divorce arrangement would be settled before trade. But it sounds now like

you and others are saying you won't agree a divorce Bill until you know

the shape of the trade deal? We all want Britain to have a clean break

by 2019, with the transitional arrangement where absolutely

necessary. Right that there are -- right the very beginning, Theresa

May offered an olive branch new citizens -- EU citizens living in

the United Kingdom. We have 600,000 Italians living in the UK and we

want them to stay. For all sorts of reasons that has been held up by the

European Union. I believe Roberta and I as politicians are probably

got more in common than that which separates us. He wants to ensure a

timely departure from the UK. As one of his MEP compatriots said in the

European Parliament two weeks ago, why would you want to punish the

United Kingdom? As long as Roberto comes added from the same place as I

do, we don't want to punish anybody, we can get on with what we need to

do to make sure that Brexit happens in the best interest of Italy, the

UK and the other countries. Absolutely. We don't want to punish

anybody. We don't want to punish the UK citizens, or EU taxpayers, that

they don't have to pay for commitments they can get in other

countries. We are very happy now that Theresa May has introduced a

number of important elements on citizens' rights. We are ready to

finalise them. So there is in effect no administrative burden, which is

imported. We need to simplify the procedure. Safeguard all the rights

for the future. These are important things. This is our priority and we

look forward to finalising it as soon as possible in the withdrawal

agreement. Thank you very much.

The time has just gone 11.30, and we say goodbye now

to viewers in Scotland, who leave us for the Sunday Politics Scotland.

Away from Brexit, Labour have been making the running this week

with its attacks on the government's flagship welfare reform,

On Wednesday, the Work and Pensions Secretary, David Gauke,

bowed to pressure by abolishing charges

In a moment we'll be talking to his opposite number,

First, Ellie Price, has taken the mood box to Canterbury to ask

what people there think of the welfare system.

Welcome to Canterbury, a city where, as long

as anyone can remember, it's

That was, of course, until June, when

Labour took it with a majority of less than 200.

What we're asking people today is about the benefits

system - do they think it's too cruel, or too kind?

We can't have people on the bread line, we can't have people

just trying to get through, it's just not right.

I just think it's abused by a lot of people.

People call people scroungers, but they don't know what

And I'm a Christian as well, so being a

Christian socialist, to me it's logical.

Too cruel to the people who actually need it, but too kind to the

Generally, in comparison to the rest of the world,

A lot of people out there, it's quite easier to go

than it is to go out and look for a job, you know?

If the benefits are too generous, I've had it before at work

when people actually say, "Oh, sorry, I can't work

the job because I'm going to be worse off because I earn more on my

Things are tough generally for everybody, I know, but

my feeling is that actually there is good support in place.

But to say it's too generous or it's too harsh,

to be honest I find that difficult, I feel I need to give the ball back.

I don't mind paying for it if it's genuine, but I know families,

generation after generation, who've never worked, never will work.

If that's all the balls meaning that people think it's too kind...

Some of my friends are in that position where

they've had their benefits stopped and been forced into work.

Because everything is dearer anyway, and they

never give you anything extra, do they?

You have to wait six weeks for your money to come

When you're right on the edge of everything, six weeks is enough to

put you in debt which you cannot get out of.

So I think the current benefits system is absolutely too

The storm for now is over, and so is the mood box.

And while several people said they thought that

the benefits system was broadly about right,

of those who voted in the

mood box today say, no, it's too cruel.

And the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,

In the debate in the Commons this week led by Labour, you called for a

pause in the roll-out of Universal Credit. Why not scrap it altogether?

Because we have always agreed with the principles which are around

simplifying the Social Security system of ensuring that work pays.

There are a number of fundamental flaws. On top of that we have seen

in the budget various cuts and the freeze to Social Security payments.

On top of that we have had various administrative issues. We are

calling for a pause and I will work with the government to fix these

fundamental issues. It is not just the fact it changes the way in which

benefits are paid. As it is going to be implemented, many working

households will lose an average of ?1300 a year if it -- if they have

got children. We would expect the Labour Party to be shedding more

likely about that? We have been, to be fair. In the summer you mentioned

the average of ?1000. Lone parents can lose up to ?4000 a year. This is

absolutely massive. Then there is a consequence of knocking people into

debt, rent arrears. I had a nurse, a single mum, and she had converted

from tax credits to Universal Credit in the summer. She had the six-week

wait, she went into arrears and she has just been served an eviction

notice. This is because it is being rolled out, currently 600,000, a

million in the next six months. We really need to stop this. Use aid is

about the amount of money people are being paid as well as how they are

paid it. -- you say it is about. What we have said is first of all we

want to see a reduction in terms of the time that people wait. I

understand that. But looking at the amount of money people get in every

month, how much would Labour committed to increasing the benefit?

We want to work with the government. We recognise there are difficulties.

We have set by ?10 billion over the next Parliament to make sure that we

would add in that element about ensuring that work pays. It is not

currently doing that. ?10 billion for Universal Credit? Yes, to

transform it. A key Social Security programme. How much on other welfare

benefits would Labour be prepared to spend? People in Canterbury say the

system is too cruel. What would Labour be prepared to spend? For

example, for disabled people, there have been a number of cuts around

that. The employment support allowance group, who are deemed as

possibly being fit for working in the future, have had about ?1500 a

year taken off them. That started in April. We said we would reinstate

that. We would reinstate the Personal Independent Payment for

people with mental health problems. How much extra money would you be

paying for extra benefits? I know you have policies on the bedroom

close etc. How much additional money would Labour be prepared to put into

the welfare system? If we look at reinstating those particular cuts

and transforming Universal Credit, it works out at about ?4 billion

every year. The IFA 's think the government is saving ?15 billion a

year with the welfare changes. -- the ISS. We're looking around at

other commitments. We know there would be additional revenue created

from reintroducing the real living wage of ?10 an hour. That would lead

to about 3.6 billion extra in the Treasury coffers. We want to make

sure that we look at it in the round. But you are not committing

that money to welfare benefits. Don't you feel as if you are putting

your money where your mouth is? Well, it is. We need to look at it

in the context of other offers we Well, it is. We need to look at it

are making. If we look at the housing offer, nearly a quarter of

the spending is around housing benefit and a quarter of that goes

to private landlords. We want to make sure that we are again making

sure that rents come down and we're not paying so much on housing

benefit. There are other financial commitments. Labour committed to the

triple for pensions. Because of the inflation rate they will be getting

an of 3%. There is a freeze on what welfare benefits are paid. Is that

right? We think it is right that we shouldn't be pushing sick and

disabled people, or older people into poverty. 300,000 more older

people have been pushed into poverty since 2010. We believe it is the

right thing to do. Let me just finish this point. We have also said

that we wanted to make sure that we extend the freeze to working age

people. We are looking at it in the context. We should not be pitting

one generation against the other. You have made other commitments like

free tuition fees, for instance, which would cost many billion pounds

a year. Why is that more important than helping the very poorest

households in the country? It's definitely not. What we need to do

is develop... We know we have 7.4 million working people living in

poverty. Absolutely outrageous for the fifth richest country in the

world to have that level. Three out of the 4 million children living in

poverty are from working families. We need to make sure our vision for

a high-paid, high skill economy is delivered. The way we will deliver

that is by improving the skill base and ensuring that we invest and

support our industries, especially small businesses. We need to make

sure that this balance is achieved. Can you give a commitment that you

would reverse all the cuts to working age benefits that you argued

against? I can commit that we will make things fairer for people who

are in and out of work. But not that you will actually reverse the cuts

made by this government? You have seen the grade book, Sarah, so you

know exactly what we have committed to. We will make sure that in

addition to providing a real living wage of ?10 an hour, working eight

support will be there. If you are in and out of work, we will support

you. The communities secretary has been

saying this morning that the government will borrow money to

invest in housing. What is your response? If it is at the levels

that we have had, about 300,000, is that correct? It a little bit less.

We committed to 500,000 a year. It is less than we would like to see.

It is a move in the right direction. It needs to be the right type of

housing. Social and affordable housing is so important. It will

help me in terms of bringing my social security spending down around

housing benefit. Thank you. I will be back with our political

panel in 20 minutes. First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello, welcome to the London

part of the show. Joining us for the duration,

Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn,

whose aunt is Prime And Paul Scully, Conservative MP

for Sutton and Cheam, who is co-chair of the all-party

parliamentary group And I want to start by asking

you both about your reflections on the humanitarian crisis

in Myanmar, and the plight I understand you were there

on the border very recently, Paul? I went with the Conservative Friends

of Bangladesh for a week, but we spent two days in Cox's Bazar

on the border and in We saw some really horrific things

and heard some horrific things and we were determined to come back

and tell those people's Well, let's take a look

at some of the pictures, because there are quite distressing

images of a mass exodus leaving These were the streams of people

that were captured on film by the BBC, and they're arriving

and they're being looked after in camps in Bangladesh,

and of course with your connections there, Tulip, your aunt of course

in her leadership role You're probably aware, Jo,

that Bangladesh is the eighth most populous country in the world,

so it's not a very rich country, it's also a very young country,

it only came into being in 1971, and it's taking in these

refugees, the Rohingya. It's very difficult,

from what I can imagine It doesn't have a lot of money,

the country doesn't have a lot of money, and they have half

a million people from the Rohingya community living

in Bangladesh at the moment, What about reflections

by Bangladeshis here in London? Sending shockwaves, no doubt,

through the capital? That's right, and, as I mentioned,

Bangladesh is a very young country, it only came into being in 1971,

so the war of independence is still very much in people's minds,

and that was called a genocide, and what's happening now in Myanmar

has the hallmarks of a genocide, which is why people

are so sympathetic. Paul, you are the first MP

in the House of Commons of Burmese heritage,

why has Aung Sang Suu Kyi not spoken out about the atrocities

going on in Myanmar? Well, the fact that my

father was born there, it absolutely breaks my heart

to see this happening. I said in Parliament last week that

Aung San Suu Kyi should be speaking out more clearly,

but who we need to be focusing our ire on is a guy

called Min Aung Hlaing, He's the guy that can

stop this tomorrow. But she could stop

it if she spoke out. She is such an influential person

not just in her own country She's a person of influence,

but she's a de facto leader - the military still have a huge

influence on the government and they also run that state,

the Rakhine state, as well. They're the ones actually

that we need to put pressure Right, but she has an overwhelmingly

popular mandate, and she has said no conflict has taken place since 5th

September, and no Well that clearly isn't the case,

we've seen the evidence? Well, I've smelt the evidence,

actually, I saw the smoke on the Burmese border,

I could smell the smoke on the Burmese border, so, yes,

that's absolutely incorrect, which is why we need to get better

access into Rakhine state Do you think she's been very,

very seriously damaged in terms I think we can see how

people have called her out across the world,

there is a definite But I think what we've got to do,

as well as calling out the disproportionate response

from the Burmese military, we've actually got to find a solution,

and it's a really complex situation because the Burmese people

are actually behind her in this, surprisingly, but they are actually

behind her as a popular movement. In terms of what should

be done here, Tulip, do you think she should be stripped

of her freedom of the city honour In my opinion, one woman's silence

means there's ethnic We're sitting here watching her

while she doesn't say anything. I'm one of those people

who grew up watching Aung San Suu Kyi and thinking,

"This woman is amazing." There's nothing I can say

to defend her silence. Where she might not directly be

in power, she has enough influence to call out the rape,

the abuse, the murder, the torture that's happening

to all the people in Myanmar So, in my opinion, any honours

that she has have to be taken away, but first and foremost she needs

to speak out, because there is ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya

community right now. It's been four months

since the fire at Grenfell Tower, which killed an estimated 80 people

and left hundreds homeless. So far, only 14 families

have been re-housed. This week there has been a row over

the future of the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management

organisation, the body once While work began this week

to screen Grenfell Tower, there was also considerable anger

over plans to disband the organisation that was

responsible for it at the time Residents fear that a bid to wind up

the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation,

known as the TMO, would leave them without a voice over

how their homes are run, The TMO was stripped of its contract

to manage nearly 10,000 properties on behalf of the council,

but many residents still want it to be in a position to be

held to account over Right now, all these people

are heading into the AGM of that In that meeting, they were going

to be asked to relinquish their membership and voting rights

to allow the council to take control Lawyers representing

the bereaved had warned that, if that was to happen,

it could hinder bringing corporate manslaughter charges and civil

lawsuits against the TMO, so residents are claiming a victory

after those present at the meeting Gordon Futter proposed

the postponement. That is the first time in 20

years that we've won a battle against the TMO,

so wonderful, it feels great. If we begin that process of proper,

real consultation, that will begin a healing process

that we desperately Both the TMO and the council

were widely criticised Joe Delaney from the Grenfell Action

Group believes the handling of this situation has

further undermined trust. It's their actions in this

which ensure that they certainly aren't on the road to rebuilding

that trust at the moment, and that's Melvyn Atkins grew up

near Grenfell Tower He says many want to see the TMO

dismantled, but at the right time. I think it's wrong to make

decisions over people's lives I think people have had enough and,

unfortunately, it shouldn't take the events of something as horrific

as Grenfell Tower to engage people and make them realise that,

actually, we are going to stand up The Labour MP for the area

echoes those criticisms. It looks like another glorious mess

and utter chaos on behalf of the TMO We've had too much of that

in the past few months. We need a bit of clarity,

we need some honesty, and that's the only way that anybody

will begin to trust them. The deputy leader of Kensington

and Chelsea council said their aim had been to work directly

with residents, rather He gave certain guarantees

if the council was to take The TMO would not be wound up,

it would be kept, it would be supported to fulfil its obligations

to both the police inquiry and the criminal investigation,

and that's very important. We would establish an independent

board of directors on the TMO During this stand-off

about the structure of the TMO, many survivors of the Grenfell fire

are still waiting to be rehoused. Around 80 people were killed,

and 203 households were left So far, 14 of those households have

been permanently rehoused, I'd hope that trust will be seen

in the context of the 235-million that's being spent at the moment

in order to provide housing We've now secured 193 homes,

and we have a promise to secure 300 by Christmas to give people

a lot of choice. The decision about the future

of the TMO has been adjourned for at least 21 days,

so there's still uncertainty for residents of the borough over

how their homes will be managed, and some way to go

before survivors get But, for now, they are claiming

a small victory in that battle. Paul, do you understand the fears

that people there have that the tenant management

organisation and the people on it, who were there at the time

of the fire, might escape justice? I can understand why there's

a disjoint and mistrust. My understanding,

having looked at it - and I'm not a legal expert,

I wasn't at the meeting, clearly - is that they were going to keep

the TMO there so that they can actually get some answers and get

them to meet justice as well, because it's really important that

anybody who's found to be, whether criminally or corporately,

whatever, done anything wrong, Do you have faith now

in the process, or do you agree with your Labour colleagues

like Diane Abbott, who said that commissioners need to be sent

in to run the council? I think what's reasonable is to make

sure that there's some justice and there's transparency

and accountability, and it really The most depressing part

of that clip, for me, was a resident saying,

"This is the first time in 20 years that we've had

a victory with the TMO." What kind of establishment

is it where you feel I don't think Grenfell

is an isolated incident, I think this is common for social

tenants all across the country, and my worry is that this inquiry

will happen and the Government will ignore the overall effects

of how building regulation and social housing regulation

actually isn't being enforced. Is that fair, as far

as you're concerned? Will the Government

actually take on board Yes, absolutely...

Really, you can guarantee that? Well, I can't guarantee it

because I'm not in the Government, but I've looked at Sajid Javid,

I've looked at Alok Sharma, the Housing Minister,

and what they've said as well, and they've been visibly moved

by Grenfell and the results They've also started having a green

paper on social housing as a whole, to see what lessons we can learn

about the future of social housing. Do you accept that money, hard cash,

needs to go behind some You're right, those ministers have

been very moved and they've spoken very emotionally about what has

happened, but, in the end, the promise that was made

by Theresa May in her conference speech was still a very small amount

of money when you think of the number of socially rented

homes that are needed. Well, yes, and in terms

of restoring and rejuvenating... In terms of fire safety,

these sorts of things, I've done a walkabout of one

of the two tower blocks so far in my area that's

council-owned and clad, The Minister has talked

about financial flexibilities, because that will depend on each

individual local authority, whether it's loans, whether it's

changing the revenue account, different solutions

for different areas. Right, but the solutions

are what people are interested in. But where the leadership

from City Hall? Where's their voice,

where's Sadiq Khan? Sadiq Khan has been very vocal

on this, but my point is it's not enough for ministers just to be

deeply moved - we need I want to see more of

the families rehoused. It's been four months

since the tragedy happened, 50 families are living in hostels

at the moment. What about the extra

money for fire safety? Every person I speak

to in my constituency is terrified, We need extra money from Government

to reinforce that fire safety But do you have to look

at the regulations first and actually find out what really

did cause and exacerbate the fire here at Grenfell,

before money is thrown at solutions that actually don't

solve the problem? Obviously things need to be looked

at and we need to get to the bottom of the problem,

but there does seem to be a reluctance on the part

of Government to commit to money, It's the local authority

as the owners of the buildings that have got to be the first people

there to look at it. The two buildings I talked

about in Sutton... Where will they find

the money, local councils? Well, they can come up

with the solutions and once we've got the solutions,

we know the finances and what the cost is,

then we can start looking Is it acceptable that only 14

households have been moved I know what they've done,

everybody's had the offer of a personal housing officer

to talk through their requirements, whether they want to go into a tower

block, whether they want to go The vast, vast majority have had

that discussion and actually, what they're doing, some

of the people haven't moved into a new home because they're

literally talking about decorations and the kind of place that

they're moving into. You want to get the right sort

of properties for the right families, there is a housing crisis

of course in London, There is a housing crisis in London

but we need to prioritise people who've gone through such a traumatic

tragedy in Grenfell Tower and, having been a local councillor,

70% of overall council funding is dependent on Government

hand-outs, so unless the Government stops cutting council budgets year

after year, the council's not going to have enough

money to do anything. Is one of the problems that actually

there isn't one single Of course there are lots

of different people and bodies involved -

does there need to be I don't think necessarily a Grenfell

tsar, but, as I say, I think the housing minister has

taken a really hands-on approach to this, he's

been down there many, many times, spoken to a lot

of residents, a lot of residents have come up to Whitehall,

Downing Street, Parliament, etc, so there's a lot

of conversations going on, but the solutions for those people,

in terms of the housing, it's a long-term solution,

you don't want to be moving Let's find a long-term solution,

which is difficult in London for the housing shortage that

you've talked about. I don't think we need a tsar,

I think we need to listen to the residents, because it sounds

like their voices haven't been heard for years and years,

either by the TMO or the council, and we need to start

listening to them. The victims have

lost their families. The Prime Minister recently spoke

about the difficulty young people had in getting onto the housing

ladder - one of many ways in which young people

claim they are worse off Now it's understood the Chancellor

is considering a cut in stamp duty for first-time buyers,

which would be worth around ?10,000 for the average Londoner buying

a home for the first time. Tanjil Rashid sat down with former

minister David Willetts, who chaired the commission

on intergenerational inequality, and began by asking him whether cuts

to stamp duty would help win back I think a stamp duty cut

for first-time buyers would be a great idea,

but also, fundamentally on housing, we've just got

to get more houses built. Isn't cutting stamp duty

missing the point somewhat, given that the problem in London

is so often with renters? Well, the evidence is that young

people do still aspire to own their own home,

so we've got to help them It's not as if young people want

a Marxist revolution, they just Meanwhile, of course,

you're quite right, they are renting and there's more we should do

to help them, both with the quality of the tenancies they've

got and with the cost. How acute are these problems

in the capital in particular? If you just look at pay,

pay rates for young people However, housing costs

are very high indeed, and once you allow for the fact that

they're having to put so much of their income

aside to pay for rent, then living standards

in London are no higher than, and in some measures even lower

than, the rest of the country. As a former Universities Minister,

you had some involvement with the issue of tuition fees,

which is one of the core complaints Do you have any regrets

about tuition fees? I think the fundamentals

of housing and wages are more important than the exact way

in which you finance When you look at how we do it,

this so-called debt is not like a mortgage debt

or an overdraft, it's basically saying you pay 9% of your earnings

above a very high threshold, After the disappointing

results for the Tories in the last election in London,

there's been a lot of speculation about how the Tories can win

back support in London, Some are saying that these policies

are sort of Corbyn-lite policies - I always think, looking back

to my time in politics, you should do what you think

is necessary to tackle Whether it's the same

as a proposition from a different political party, just do

what you think is right, and I think there's now a very

strong appetite in Government to recognise that it's right

that we do whatever is necessary to offer a fair deal

to young people. Joining us is Abi Wilkinson,

freelance journalist, who writes Abi, do you think the

Conservatives are doing enough What it feels like to me is young

people turned out at a higher rate than they normally do in the last

election and now they are scrabbling around, trying to pitch watered-down

versions of Labour policies in a desperate attempt

to win a bit of this new, I think David Willets was absolutely

right that the way you tackle this Now, there is a balance

because you've only got a certain pot of money to work this out,

but I think reducing stamp duty for young people,

certainly in London, is going to be a really important

factor, but only one factor in solving housing,

which is, at the end of the day, What do you think about the stamp

duty issue particularly? If we believe that young

people want to buy homes, want to get onto the property

ladder, will that be an incentive? I've been reading up on it and,

as I understand it, what might happen is it just simply pushes

the prices up, because unless you increase supply,

if people get helped out with the money there then sellers

can just charge more. I think there's a lot they could be

doing to increase supply. Is Help To Buy really the answer,

when actually it is the private rented sector where people need

so much more help? To be frank, Help To Buy,

stamp duty cuts and these kind It is, as Abi said,

increasing supply. In terms of rent, I'm actually

leading a debate on Monday talking about taking rent into account

when you're actually applying for a mortgage,

because rent tends to be more From my perspective,

what I want is a secure tenancy, so my landlord can't,

say, sign for a year then hike the rent up to a level higher

than I can afford so I have A lot of European countries have

much more secure tenancies, And you think that would

make a big difference? Do you agree with David Willets,

though, that young people don't want Yeah, I think that's true,

I don't think young people are all voting Labour

because they're all radicals. Young people want a decent life,

ultimately, and they think That doesn't mean, yeah,

of course I agree that we're not The Labour Party has made an offer

and an overture to young people, and more of them did vote

for your party, but was it cynically-based with promises

of scrapping tuition fees? Are these things

actually affordable? Our manifesto was costed,

unlike other manifestos, And it was disputed, of course,

by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. For us, the whole point was not

so much about a cheap gimmick... This gimmick about stamp duty,

I think, is such a giveaway A senior source close

to the Government actually said in the Financial Times,

the Chancellor knows that this is the last time he can

appeal to young people, so he's doing this in

a desperate attempt. In our election we talked

about lots of things, Building more houses,

bringing back educational maintenance allowance -

that's really important to young That's the kind of things

they should be looking at before How much are you playing catch-up

here with the Labour Party? Because it is interesting that

all these policies from the Tory party and the mood music has changed

since the election? Just because you have a senior

source doesn't mean it's true, these quotes in the Financial Times,

these kinds of things. If you're going to tackle

intergenerational fairness, it's not actually about an electoral

cycle, as we've heard, Whether you're looking at social

care and health care at the elderly stage,

or you're looking at student fees, you're looking at housing

at a young people's aspect, all of these things need to be

tackled over long-term solutions. Right, let's look at tuition fees,

how big an issue is that? I think there's no reason that

tuition fees shouldn't be paid out of general taxation,

because a lot of people went to university before tuition fees

were brought in and are earning a lot now and they can definitely

afford to help contribute. In terms of debt, it's not the debt

that burdens me most, you do only pay it back over

a certain threshold. Things like credit card debt that

young people are taking on increasingly frequently I think

is a much more pressing issue. And what about lowering taxes

for people in their 20s and 30s? There's nothing wrong

with "from each according The problem is, young

people are earning less, Taxes should be based

on your ability to pay. I think that seems very much

like a gimmick to me. In the end, do you need to hurt some

of your older voters or pensioners in terms

of looking at the triple-lock, which was discussed

in the manifesto, means-testing universal benefits, in order to use

some of that money to help younger It's not about hurting people

but I think we do need to make sure that everybody's paying a fair

amount of tax... And have you got it

wrong up until now? Well I think these are the things

we were testing in the manifesto. I think we actually should have

spent more time debating it and having a more rounded debate

for the long-term solutions that But ultimately we can't

keep on going as we are, spending more money than we're

actually earning as a country and having, in some areas,

in unfair proportions. Abi Wilkinson thank you very much

for coming onto the programme today. That's all we have time for,

my thanks to Paul and Tulip. And our political panel

Tom Newton Dunn, Helen Lewis Wheel pick up on some of the things

we were talking about earlier. Principally Brexit. Nigel Evans said

the British government would not agree a divorce bill until the issue

of the trade bill. Liam Fox said a similar thing. Are we at a

stalemate? I don't think so. I think it actually means that we are in a

pretty decent shape to then move on in December at the summit to the

crucial next stage on trade talks. Theresa May also said what Liam Fox

said this morning, at a press conference in Brussels. She said

there will be no figure until we see everything else on the table. That

would be the last thing we do at the back end of 2018. The likes of the

Dutch prime minister said we don't need you to put a figure on the

table to move onto the next stage. We need to spell out what to do

things you do want to pay for. Those against that approach say you can

tie it up very quickly and come to a figure. I think the government will

hold back on some stuff. The full agreement on pensions. You can see

an area where the British government and the EU 27 can coalesce around.

There has been more progress than the EU and the talks have been given

credit for this week? Yes, you're the remarkable prospect of European

leaders tried to go out of their way to emphasise they were hoping

Theresa May. That is as much about what Michel Barnier is doing. He

should be seen by the UK as the good guy. He is the note -- EU

negotiator. Yes. He has to talk to the 27 and try to persuade Angela

Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to give him room for a manoeuvre. He was

pleased by pluck -- Florence. I think what happened on Friday was

the result of him explaining to Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron

that some gestures were needed to show that there is movement.

Otherwise, if there is an agreement to move forward in December, really

from the moment that Christmas is out of the way, Britain then

probably goes into full-blown, no Deal preparation. It wasn't just

Theresa May who was in Brussels. Jeremy Corbyn was there as well. Did

that have any effect? Labour are trying to represent themselves as an

alternative, that they are grown-ups underwear. If they are seen to be

deliberately trying to wreck this process, that doesn't make them look

very grown-up. They will get a huge slapping in the press. They don't

have a great vested interest in doing things that will later be seen

to be unpopular. For the moment they are very happy with their position

because they feel they can be all things to all men. But as those

individual bits of the line items come up, they will be forced to make

unpopular decisions. Theresa May appears to be almost using the

problems she has with the Cabinet, the divisions within the UK

government, lack of authority as Prime Minister, as a strength as she

goes into the EU? That was the most remarkable thing about the summit

for me. She made an absolute virtue of her extraordinary weakness at

home. A cabinet in full disagreement and a House of Commons that doesn't

have a majority to vote for any kind of Brexit. Instead of Queen

Boadicea, she who handbags anybody who gets in the way, she went on to

say, I'm weak, I'm humble, I desperately need your help, you have

to give me something I can sell to the British people with the brackets

behind it, the subtext, if you don't, you will get Boris Johnson.

Amazingly, they fell for this. Hook line and sinker. That is true but it

is worth emphasising there is weakness on the other side. Brexit

is not the only thing the European Union has on its plate. It has the

situation in Catalonia. The election last night of a Eurosceptic populist

in the Czech Republic. What is happening in Austria. Germany

doesn't have a government. I think it's a mistake to see it as the 27

with no problems at all and Britain having absolutely no cards to play.

The other thing that worries the Germans is the future of the single

currency, of which London is the major supplier of capital and

services, and really powers the eurozone. Quite a lot of practical

politics is coming into play. We have to leave it there.

Jo Coburn will be back with the Daily Politics -

that's on BBC Two at midday tomorrow.

Join me again next Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.